Call us:416-218-8888

REPORTED CASES

  • Smith v. Torelli 2013 ONSC 1936

    Sometimes people try to avoid paying support by hiding money, disguising how much their companies and other assets are worth, or by refusing to provide disclosure. In this case, the wealthy father payor did not want to provide his income information, and made a number of complicated legal arguments to try to avoid his child support obligations. We were successful in having the court order him to provide his income information and our client was awarded almost all of her legal fees as a result.

    View more
  • More v. Ross 2013 ONSC 2327

    At trial, a favorable result was obtained for our client, as well as an order requiring her former husband to pay a portion of her legal fees. He appealed, and we successfully defended the favorable trial result for our client. Her former husband was required to pay a portion of her legal fees for the appeal, as well.

    View more
  • Phelan v Verni 2013 ONSC 2893

    In this case, we successfully prevented our client’s ex-husband from reducing the amount of child support he was paying to our client for her teenage son.

    View more
  • Grenier v. Grenier, 2012 ONCA 732 – striking pleadings

    • In this case, the husband appealed an order that we had obtained on motion striking his pleadings on the basis of his failure to comply with orders for disclosure. The Court of Appeal upheld the order made by the motions judge and dismissed the appeal with costs payable to our client in the amount of $7,500. As a result, the case proceeded to an uncontested trial.

    View more
  • Carole Goyette v. Parkhill, 2008 CanLII 13184 – fresh evidence on appeal

    • This was a case where the husband had moved to introduce fresh evidence on appeal. We represented the wife. We were successful in having the husband’s motion denied and the evidence excluded. We were successful in having the husband’s appeal dismissed.

    View more
  • Farjad-Tehrani v. Karimpour, 2010 ONCA 326 – gifts from parents and costs

    • The opposing party appealed two decisions relating to the division of matrimonial property and costs. The Court of Appeal agreed with our position that funds advanced by the appellant’s parents were gifts and not loans. The Court also upheld the costs award of $50,000 plus disbursements and GST. In the end, the appeal was dismissed and the appellant was ordered to pay our client costs of the appeal fixed in the amount of $12,000.

    View more
  • Dalgleish v. Dalgleish, 2006 CanLII 18618 – inadvertent omissions from Minutes of Settlement

    • In this case, we appealed a final order that was made on the basis of Minutes of Settlement entered into by the parties. It was our position that, through inadvertence, a crucial term was omitted from the Minutes. At the time the order was made, neither party was represented by counsel. Our client’s appeal was allowed and the order of the motions judge dismissing certain aspects of our client’s motion relating to the Minutes was set aside.

    View more
  • Ruster v. Ruster, 2003 CanLII 22940 – unjust enrichment and date of marriage deductions

    • In this case, the wife appealed a favourable trial judgment we had obtained for the husband. The wife claimed that the trial judge erred in dismissing her claim for unjust enrichment and allowing the husband to claim a certain date of marriage deduction. The Court of Appeal held that the trial judge had correctly applied the law and the wife’s appeal was dismissed. Costs were payable to our client in the amount of $5,000.

    View more
  • D’Andrade v. Schrage, 2011 ONSC 2144 – costs

    • Our client was completely successful at trial. In awarding the full amount of costs as claimed in the amount of $119,647.91, Justice Sachs stated as follows: “[Ms. D’Andrade] retained thorough and competent counsel who took the steps necessary to advance her claims and defend her against the numerous claims that were being made by Mr. Schrage”. As the husband had three lawyers representing him at the trial, the judge found that it would be unreasonable for him to have expected Ms. D’Andrade to do less.

    View more
  • Gibson v. Gibson, 2011 ONSC 4404 – income, lifestyle and support

    • This decision came after a sixteen day trial where we represented the wife. The most contentious issue was the husband’s income and the appropriate level of child and spousal support. In the end, the husband was ordered to pay our client $5,301 per month in child support and $19,000 per month in spousal support.

    View more
  • Farjad-Tehrani v. Karimpour, 2009 CanLII 18882 – equalization and costs

    • Following a trial decision, Justice Himel released a further decision on equalization and costs. At trial, we represented the wife, Ms. Farjad-Tehrani. It was our position that the husband owed our client $55,885.46 and $20,000 for the line of credit payment made after the parties separated. The husband took the position that he only owed $4,058. In the end, the court ordered the husband to pay our client an equalization payment in the amount of $55,846 (plus interest) and $20,000 for the line of credit. As our client was largely successful at trial, costs were fixed at $50,000 plus disbursements and GST.

    View more
  • S.P. v. R.P., 2010 ONSC 2247 – arrears of support and blameworthy conduct

    • We brought an application for arrears of child and spousal support and ongoing support. It was our client’s position that her husband had intentionally failed to make financial disclosure over the course of several years, which would have resulted in increased support for our client. Ultimately, the court found that the husband had not acted equitably toward our client and the children. Therefore, our client’s claim was allowed as requested and the husband was ordered to pay our client $463,000 for arrears of support in addition to ongoing support of $2,000 per month.

    View more
  • Moore v. Ross, 2013 ONSC 2327 – appeals and arrears of child support (NOTE: Robyn’s summary of this case already on website)

    • This was an appeal from an Order requiring a husband to pay arrears of child support and orthodontic expenses to our client as well as costs. The Order was made following a three day trial. The husband sought to have all arrears erased and requested an order that he should not have to pay ongoing child support as a result of our client’s means and the capital available to her. The Divisional Court agreed with the trial judge’s statement that regular child support in Canada is based entirely on the means of the payor spouse. The husband’s appeal was dismissed and our client was awarded costs fixed in the amount of $5,000.

    View more
  • Mason v. Blanchard, 2014 ONCJ 697 – summary judgment

    • We acted for the wife in this case. The husband brought a motion to change a final order for support and access. In response, we brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the motion to change on the basis that there was no genuine issue requiring a trial. In granting our summary judgment motion, the Court found that the husband had not established an involuntary change to his financial circumstances, that he had sworn three misleading affidavits, and that he had failed to provide court ordered disclosure.

    View more
  • Gibson v. Gibson, 2011 ONSC 5602 – costs and offers to settle

    • Following a sixteen day trial in which our client was successful, an order was made with respect to costs. As the trial decision was more favourable to our client than our offer to settle, the husband was ordered to pay our client costs in the amount of $240,000.

    View more
  • Jassa v. Davidson, 2014 ONCJ 698 – summary judgment, child support, financial disclosure, and adverse inference

    • This was a motion for summary judgment that we brought on behalf of the mother. In granting our motion for summary judgment and ordering child support at the level we were seeking, the Court stated as follows: “I have no hesitation in finding that as a result of the almost complete failure to comply with his legal and court ordered obligation to provide financial disclosure for more than one year, there is no genuine issue for trial”.

    View more
  • D’Andrade v. Schrage, 2011 ONSC 1174 – validity of marriage contract

    • This was a trial decision where the husband was seeking to set aside a marriage contract on the basis that our client was contemplating separation at the time the agreement was signed. Ultimately, the husband’s claims were dismissed and our client was entitled to the sum of $250,000 plus interest in accordance with the terms of the marriage contract.

    View more